James Vesely, editorial page editor of the Seattle Times, wants to limit the influence of parties in elections.
One way to get partisan politics out of public office is to force more candidates to run without party label.
The idea of nonpartisan elections makes more and more sense, especially in the public-works areas of government — those places where management of the office is more important than setting policy.
Vesely thinks there are many such places, but none of his examples seem to qualify. (If a position is truly a management position, rather than a policy position, then the holder should be appointed, rather than elected.)
I am not wholly opposed to nonpartisan elections. They often make sense when the electorates are small. But they have one great disadvantage, well known to most political scientists, and unknown to almost all editors (or perhaps ignored by them). When electorates are large, political parties counterbalance the influence of the prominent — such as newspaper editors — with numbers. Partisan elections shift decisions toward majorities, and away from elites.
Nonpartisan elections especially increase the influence of newspapers, as Mr. Vesely must know. So when he argues that more elections should be nonpartisan, he is saying that the unelected editors at the Seattle Times should have even more influence. I can see why he would find that idea agreeable; I can't see why voters should grant him his wish.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(It is fun to speculate about the effects of choosing editors at our monopoly newspapers with elections. I am not proposing that seriously, but thinking about the idea does illuminate just how much power these unelected people have.)
Posted by Jim Miller at March 21, 2005 07:00 AM | Email ThisCandidates will get support and campaign money from somewhere. If the parties aren't involved, something else will fill the void. Jim, here, thinks it is the newspapers. It will also be special interest groups, such as the WEA and the ABA.
I know when I look at non-partisan races in the voters pamphlet, such as judges, I look at who has endorsed the candidate. That tells you what side of the aisle they are on, just as clearly as a party identification. So why stifle free association?
Posted by: Janet S on March 21, 2005 07:30 AMAs Americans, we are granted the right to free speach and the freedom to peacably assemble by God. The government must not step in and start dictating what we can and can't say or with whom we can and can't associate, especially in the field of politics.
If I want to form a politics club, and if I want to call that group a political party, why should it be excluded from endorsing and supporting its candidate of choice? If I want to tell people that I am endorsed by a specific group, why should I be restricted in which groups I can cite?
It's silliness. This Times editor should just come out and say it straight up: He is opposed to the natural God-given freedoms we have and would have government limit our rights to somehow make things more fair. The only thing it would end up doing is making a lot of people angry.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on March 21, 2005 08:30 AMI have never understood why the political party of the county sheriff candidates is identified, but judges run as "nonpartisan."
'PLAYGIRL' EDITOR FIRED AFTER OUTING SELF AS REPUBLICAN Mon Mar 21 2005 10:09:48 ET
**Exclusive**
PLAYGIRL editor-in-chief Michele Zipp has been stripped of her duties after she revealed how she voted Republican in the 2004 election.
Zipp, in an e-mail, claims she was fired after an onslaught of liberal backlash.
"Hello Drudge,
"After your coverage of my article about coming out and voting Republican, I did receive many letters of support from fellow Republican voters, but it was not without repercussions. Criticism from the liberal left ensued. A few days after the onslaught of liberal backlash, I was released from my duties at Playgirl magazine.
"After underlings expressed their disinterest of working for an outed Republican editor, I have a strong suspicion that my position was no longer valued by Playgirl executives. I also received a phone call from a leading official from Playgirl magazine, in which he stated with a laugh, "I wouldn't have hired you if I knew you were a Republican.
"I just wanted to let you know of the fear the liberal left has about a woman with power possessing Republican views."
Posted by: TolerantTed on March 21, 2005 10:09 AMAsk Dave Ross - running as a democrat meant he had to follow a democrat script if he wanted democrat support. Same thing happened to Dino - he had to couch arguments in certain ways in order to get republican party support ($$). The parties are a damper on free political debate - they discourage free thought and encourage lock step, strangulated, puppet candidates. But theocratic republicans and socialist democrats love the parties because they enable their obnoxious viewpoints to get a lot more visibility than they otherwise would.
Think independently; vote independently. Leave the sheep to growing wool.
Posted by: srogers on March 21, 2005 12:15 PMVoters identify with their representatives and who they voted for. If you always give them a choice between two members of the same party they will identify themselves with the position of one of them.
It is shameful that the Northwest states are trying to move toward left over political ideas from the segregated South.
Posted by: Ray J. Tuleya, Oregon on March 21, 2005 01:49 PMOh Jonathan, don't get ballistic over this before you get the definition right. Non-partisan elections are indeed constitutional as there is no reference to political parties in the Constitution. A non-partisan election is simply one in which the candidates are not identified by party name on the ballot. They are often used in municipal and county elections, and for election of members to Nebraska's unicameral legislature. That's it! It doesn't mean that candidates in such an election cannot be endorsed by a political party or other group.
For example, in Minnesota (where I lived in the 1970's) candidates in non-partisan elections for school and library boards in Minneapolis and for Hennepin County board, sheriff and county attorney are routinely endorsed by DFL (Democratic) and Republican party organizations. In California, it is customary for parties to identify registered Republicans or Democrats who are candidates in non-partisan elections for county supervisor and municipal office.
In New York City in 2003, Mayor Mike Bloomberg tried to pass a city charter amendment to provide for non-partisan elections for citywide office and city council members, but that turned out to be DOA. That was OK with me, as I firmly believe that what NY needs is a competitive Republican party and not non-partisan elections.
I am sure this will be an enormous improvement over the current non-partisan elections that we have for municipal and school board offices. My God -- anybody and everybody can file for office, and can make it to the general election if they are in the top two -- even if the Democrat elite doesn't approve of them. It is absolutely terrible that the top two vote getters make it to the general election, and even worse that many of the general election contests in Seattle under the current system are actually competitive.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 22, 2005 02:16 AMMy main point is a simple one: Nonpartisan elctions with large electorates give more power to newspaper editors. I think Vesely should have acknowledged that.
As for the Seattle elections, I don't follow them closely, but I don't know of any won by non-Democrats recently. Do you?
Posted by: Jim Miller on March 22, 2005 07:15 AMWith party primaries, Heidi Wills would have stayed on the Seattle city council in 2003, while Judy Nicastro would probably never have been elected in 1999 (or might have even stayed on in 2003). With the top-two system applying to all races now, we might see some reasonable competitive general election contests between two Democrats for some of the Seattle-based seats on the King County Council or state legislature.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 22, 2005 10:20 AM